RONALD LEE,

v.

THE STATE OF FLORIDA,

GORDO, J.

Ronald Lee appeals the trial court’s denial of his successive postconviction motion and the imposition of sanctions barring him from further pro se filings before the trial court. Because the motion for postconviction relief was summarily denied without elaboration and the record before us fails to show that Lee was afforded due process prior to sanctions being imposed, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

In October of 2019, Lee filed a successive postconviction motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(b)(1) before the trial court. Lee claimed that he had obtained sworn testimony from an eyewitness, which established that he was innocent.

On October 29, 2019, the trial court summarily denied Lee’s motion without any elaboration.

On October 30, 2019,1 the trial court entered an order prohibiting Lee from filing further pro se pleadings, motions or petitions. Lee appealed and requested that the circuit court clerk transmit a record for this Court’s review. The initial record transmitted was incomplete and contained documents that pertained not to Lee but to another defendant. As such, this Court was unable to properly consider the merits of Lee’s claims.

On February 7, 2020, this Court contacted the circuit court clerk seeking a corrected record, which was filed on February 26, 2020.

The record reveals that the trial court summarily denied Lee’s postconviction motion without any elaboration.

The record also lacks any order to show cause advising Lee that he could be subject to sanctions if he failed to show good cause why he should not be prohibited from further filings.

On March 17, 2020, this Court entered an order relinquishing jurisdiction to the trial court for thirty days “to enter and record a written order denying defendant’s post-conviction motion heard on October 16, 2019” and to “record any order to show cause issued to defendant prior to its entry of the October 16, 2019 order prohibiting defendant from further pro se filings.” The time to record the requisite orders lapsed on April 17, 2020. No order appeared on the trial court’s docket or was filed with this Court.

The Florida Supreme Court has explained that “[t]o support summary denial without a hearing, a trial court must either state its rationale in its decision or attach those specific parts of the record that refute each claim presented in the motion.” McLin v. State, 827 So. 2d 948, 954 (Fla. 2002) (quoting Anderson v. State, 627 So. 2d 1170, 1171 (Fla. 1993)). “To uphold the trial court’s summary denial of claims raised in a 3.850 motion, the claims must be either facially invalid or conclusively refuted by the record.” Id. (quoting Foster v. State, 810 So. 2d 910, 914 (Fla. 2002)).

This Court must reverse an appeal from a summary denial of postconviction relief unless the record shows conclusively that the appellant is entitled to no relief. Rolack v. State, 100 So. 3d 766, 766 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012); Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(A), (D). Because the trial court summarily denied Lee’s motion without

any elaboration and the record fails to conclusively refute his claims, we reverse the denial of postconviction relief.

Furthermore, while the Florida Supreme Court has empowered courts to prohibit pro se pleadings in appropriate circumstances, a litigant must first be provided notice and an opportunity to be heard through the issuance of an order to show cause. Chambers v. State, 225 So. 3d 311, 311 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (citing State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47, 48 (Fla. 1999)). Because there is nothing in the record to reflect that this procedure was followed, we reverse the trial court’s order prohibiting Lee from filing further pro se pleadings in this case without prejudice to the trial court to issue the appropriate notice and provide Lee with an opportunity to be heard. See id. at 311-12. Reversed and remanded.